UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Document Sample
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Powered By Docstoc
					                    UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
                TITLE 24US CODE—HOSPITALS & ASYLUMS
     TITLE 24 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS--HOUSING AND URBAN
                             DEVELOPMENT

                                    Certiorari for the

            United State Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit No. 04-3456&7

                                 Tuesday June 29, 2004

Erpenback et al v. FBI et al reversing USA v. Erpenbeck So. Ohio DC 0648-1; 03-00050

        John Finnan and Marc Menne v. Eastern Kentucky DC in Covington et al

Lynn Battaglia, Deputy-in-Charge             US Supreme Court
US District Court for Covington              Office of the Clerk
35 West 5th Street                           Washington DC, 20543-001
P.O. Box 1073
Covington, KY 41012-1073

Department of Community Development          United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Two Centennial Plaza Suite 700               US Post Office and Courthouse Building
805 Central Ave.                             Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3988
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202                       (513)564-7072
Phone: (513)352-6146


Writer‘s Fee: $5,000 payable to Anthony J. Sanders; Hospitals & Asylums, 451 Ludlow
Ave. #212, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 (513)281-3029 title24uscode@aol.com

                          Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

In Summary, due to prosecutorial indiscretion, developer Bill Erpenbeck and Kentucky
Bankers John Finnan and Marc Menne all need a judgment of acquittal after declaring
guilty verdicts under Rule 29 d(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective
immediately. In sentencing Bill Erpenbeck to 20-30 years for bank fraud on April Fool‘s
Day 2004 the trial court failed to meet the formal civil requirements for Statute of Fraud
dispute resolution between merchant and purchasers under §2-201 of the Uniform
Commercial Code that never requires incarceration. By imposing criminal sentencing the
Prosecution exhibits the willful maliscious intent called scienter and prosecutorial
indiscretion to warrant a fraud conviction themselves while the homebuilder and bankers
demonstrate insufficient intent to continue holding them responsible for an honest
mistake corrected years ago. The false imprisonment of the homebuilder and threats of
sentencing for the Bank executives of the Former People‘s Bank of Northern Kentucky in
the trial court in North Eastern Kentucky scheduled for Oct. 23, 2004 in Covington lead
the Bar of the US Supreme Court to secure the instant release of one prisoner and instant
dismissal of the criminal prosecution of him and his banking associates while the
Supreme Court reviews US Sentencing and the ABA Kennedy Commission Report1
leaving everyone peace.


On July 1, 2004 Judge Arthur Spiegel issued sentencing from a check-kiting scheme that
ran from 1999 to early 2002 leading to the diversion of $33.9 million of home-purchase
proceeds into Erpenbeck Co. bank accounts. $27 million of the allegedly delinquent
contracts had already been settled before the homebuilders were detained and business
became untenable. Sentencing is clearly triple jeopardy;

1. Tony Erpenbeck, 69, the father of convicted bank swindler Bill Erpenbeck, was
sentenced this afternoon to nearly six years in federal prison for attempting to influence
testimony of his daughter, Lori, in the long-running bank fraud case.

2. Lori Erpenbeck, whose lawyer filed papers Wednesday saying imprisonment would be
"completely inappropriate" faced 108 to 135 months in prison on one bank fraud
conviction, received a lighter sentence of just a year and one day.

3. Michelle Marksberry, Erpenbeck Co.'s closing agent, received a two-year sentence for
bank fraud.

                                                     I
A. The Cincinnati Business Courier reported on June 23, 2004 that, John Finnan and
Marc Menne could each serve a minimum nine-year sentence. To reduce their sentencing
they agreed to continue working with investigators who are looking into the Erpenbeck
scandal, in which homebuilder Bill Erpenbeck diverted closing checks from home sales
into an account at Peoples Bank, leaving hundreds of Erpenbeck Co. homebuyers without
clear titles to their homes. Erpenbeck was sentenced to 30 years in prison and ordered to
pay $26.3 million in restitution for outstanding contracts that he could not honor as the
result of being incarcerated. At a hearing at U.S. District Court in Covington this 2004,
Finnan, who was president of People's Bank, and Menne, who served as vice president,
entered guilty pleas to charges of willful misappropriation of $2 million in bank funds,
bank fraud and processing false loan applications. The report says the declarants will pay
restitution of $9 million to $11 million, plus fines of $15,000 to $1 million. Malicious
prosecution in 2002 for the same charges has already resulted in the demise of People's
Bank of Northern Kentucky. The Bank of Kentucky was forced to buy the bank's assets
in 2002. Sentencing for both Menne and Finnan has been set for Oct. 23, 20042.


1
  Recommendations presented to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy WASHINGTON, D.C.,
June 23, 2004 repeals mandatory minimum sentences and come to the resolution to identify and remove
unnecessary legal barriers that prevent released inmates from successfully reentering society overruling any
need for another criminal trial http://www.abanews.org/nosearch/kencomm/release.html
2
  June 22, 2004. Cincinnati Business Courier. Former Peoples Bank of N. Ky. execs plead guilty
C. This Fraud case officially began in July 2002 at roughly the same time E.O. 13271
Establishment of the Corporate Fraud Task Force was signed by President Bush to
provide direction for the investigation of corporate security fraud, accounting fraud, mail
and wire fraud, money laundering, tax fraud and other related financial offenses. The US
District Court happened to issue a guilty verdict against Mr. Erpenbeck and People‘s
Bank of Northern Kentucky at that time. Federal prosecution suddenly became illegally
penal in a second review. In their formerly solvent trial in 2002 the District Court issued
a $34 million judgment against Mr. Erpenbeck in regards to alleged disputed contracts
while associating with the People‘s Bank of Northern Kentucky. In January of 2004 Mr.
Erpenbeck was suddenly, mysteriously and very publicly jailed by the US District Court
S. District of Ohio and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He had paid or honored $27
million of the $34 million in outstanding contracts. This senseless act of destruction by
the Prosecutor left the Federal Court responsible for $26.3 million of un-honored
development contracts and $10 million reparations with no more than $15,000 - $1
million in fines to settle the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Fraud Recovery
under 24CFR§792.202. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to overrule
mandatory minimum sentencing.

C. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 999 U.N.T.S.
171, of Mar. 23, 1976 that state, ―No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of
inability to fulfill a contractual obligation‖ and Art. 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 states,

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it
was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable
at the time the penal offence was committed..

The V Amendment to the US Constitution elaborates,

Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb. Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation
D. The Supreme Court is highly encouraged to take this opportunity to instantly acquit
the declarants of Criminal Charges and release the Prisoner. Kerr v. United States Dist.
Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394 402 (1976).observes that ―the petitioner
must show that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable‖. The acquittal is
clearly required as the financial errors of the homebuilder and banker have already been
largely settled and cannot be used to justify incarceration as they are civil and financial in
nature. The crimes and threat to society presented by the innocent ―corporate frauds‖ are
overshadowed by the grievious errors of the ―terrorist‖ prosecutors and criminal judges
whose deprivation of rights under color of law 18USC(13)§242 and kidnapping under
18USC(55)§1201 are the single identifiable cause for the current non-fulfillment of
contracts. The case is remanded to the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to take
responsibility for checking up on the $26.3 million of un-honored development contracts,
$10 million reparations and $15,000 - $1 million in fines settling the Housing and Urban
Development Section 8 Fraud Recovery under 24CFR§792.202. None of these ―frauds
of the court‖ continue to be a threat to society or toll the Class A or B felony threshold
for mandatory incarceration set forth by Probation statute 18USC(227)§3563. The
prosecution however presents a real threat to corporate America and the economic
livelihood of our nation that can tolerate mistakes made in good faith by the declarants
but cannot tolerate the continued criminal prosecution of those confessing declarants who
have the right to have their civil and criminal bank fraud claims dismissed by the
Attorney General under 12USC(43)§4206.


                                            II
A. The sentencing Judge Susan J. Dlotte, from the District Court of the Southern District
of Ohio reversed USA v. Erpenbeck to read Erpenbeck et al v. FBI et al misc.
1:04mc034. The case number may be forgery as the result of the Clinton County
Prosecutor who broke into the author‘s house in Hamilton County to return files the
investigator had previously destroyed in an illegal wire tap. We hope that Judge Susan
Dlotte will verify this case number to determine whether a forgery occurred during the
unlawful search of Prosecutor. In light of the intangible damages caused by the felonies
of Prosecutors Judge Dlotte has no choice but to uphold her reversal titled, Erpenbeck v.
FBI and the United States must release Bill Erpenbeck, without further ado. The original
brief was suspiciously drafted by the Court the day after the author was forced to close
his account with US Bank because they appeared to have become federally corrupt after
receiving a copy of the initial Erpenbeck filing of Hospitals & Asylums with the Federal
Reserve demanding Erpenbeck‘s release in February of 2004 and protecting the People‘s
Bank of Northern Kentucky. The author suspects that the corporate fraud task force
petitioned for a search warrant from the federal prosecutor and US Bank in conspiracy to
break into the former depositors house and seize his recent bank statements that were
glaringly cruel and proved the Federal Reserve incited bank fraud 18USC(63)§1344 (2)
against low income depositors that has led many of them to close their accounts and
banks to make several billion dollars through the false pretense of interest rate hikes. The
Clinton County Prosecutor a week or two later seems to have seized upon these unrelated
warrants to perpetrate a crime ―In Defense of Innocent Vincent Doan‖, an innocent man
falsely accused of kidnapping and murdering his own girlfriend, to cross two county lines
to conduct a wire tap and unkowingly destroy over $5 Trillion of Code Law in a ZIP disk
in contravention to 18USC(47)§1030(a)(5)(iii) by intentionally accessing a protected
computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage. The
prosecutors had to break in twice to return stolen files, library books and temporal
projects that had expired after an instant lawsuit was filed with the US District Court,
Ohio Attorney General, Governor, who must Pardon and Release both falsely accused
aggravated murderers ―Innocent Vincent Doan (Clinton)‖ and ―Jerome Campbell
(Hamilton)‖ and the County Prosecutor who is still required to rehire the entire office on
the basis of no less than 100 pages of criminal law per person and get a County Clerk that
publishes all their cases on the Internet. This first terrifying white collar case in the US
District Court Southern District of Ohio is primarily attributed to the prohibition of the
death penalty and increased scrutiny on sentencing in the Hamilton County Court that led
to a flight of extremely malicious prosecutors from the County Court to the fraud mis-
trial they had arranged with the FBI to satisfy their demand for terrorism and populated
the court to such an extent that the judge couldn‘t resist. The District Court is not much
more civil than the County Prosecutor and should seriously consider both (1) prohibiting
all criminal prosecution from the Federal Court (2) indexing all decisions on the Internet
so that they could scientifically evolve from a den of fraudulent slavers and thieves to a
place where businessmen and scholars could learn the law, be paid for their work and
settle their disputes without fear of imprisonment or unpleasantness at all.
                                            III

A. The submission of this brief in its second draft was timed to make the arguments of
Vice President Cheney v. USDC 03-475 Certiorari to the District of Columbia Circuit
Argued April 27, 2004–Decided June 24, 2004. It was inspired because Mr. Cheney
visited Cincinnati to throw the opening pitch for the Cincinnati Reds in a yearly
Presidential tradition on one of Erpenbeck‘s many days of trial. Secretary of Health and
Human Services Tommy Thompson gave a lecture on diabetes on the day of the final
sentencing hearing. The initial filing failed to affect a release for Bill Erpenbeck. It is
also interesting to note that the District Court has so far refused to furnish criminal
records from the trial as requested similar to the Supreme Court case Cheney v. USDC.

B. In a 7-2 decision, justices said the lower court should consider whether a federal open
government law could be used to get task force documents under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a
former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of
private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry. The
Sierra Club, a liberal environmental club, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group,
sued to get the records. They argued the public has a right to information about
committees like Cheney's. The organizations contended that environmentalists were shut
out of the meetings, while executives like former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth Lay
were key task force players. Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder said that it's clear that
the groups will get some papers, but it's less clear when because the case may end up a
second time at the Supreme Court. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that
''ultimately, we can't believe courts will endorse the Bush administration's assertion of
unchecked executive secrecy and power‖. The Supreme Court was the latest stop in a
nearly three-year fight over access to records of the task force that prepared a national
energy strategy in 2001. Most of the recommendations stalled in Congress. A separate
lawsuit seeks thousands of documents under a separate law, the Freedom of Information
Act. A judge ruled this spring that those documents should be released. The president is
not above the law, Kennedy wrote, but there is a ''paramount necessity of protecting the
executive branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic
performance of its constitutional duties.'' This policy is no different for corporate
executives who must continue working if they are to honor their contracts.
C. Citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 the Court found while the President is not
above the law, the Judiciary must afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest possible
protection, Communications‘ confidentiality is of utmost importance Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681. The common-law writ of mandamus against a lower court such as this
request for a, judgment of acquittal, is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a): ―The Supreme
Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.‖ This is a ―drastic and extraordinary‖ remedy ―reserved for really
extraordinary causes.‖ Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259—260 (1947). ―The traditional
use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal
courts has been to confine [the court against which mandamus is sought] to a lawful
exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction.‖ Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26
(1943). Although courts have not ―confined themselves to an arbitrary and technical
definition of ‗jurisdiction,‘ ‖ Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967), ―only
exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‗usurpation of power,‘ ‖ present a
―clear abuse of discretion,‖ Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383
(1953), ―will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy,‖ Will, 389 U.S., at 95.,
but must also ask whether the District Court‘s actions constituted an unwarranted
impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties. Pp. 12—20.
Justice Scallia and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately Thursday to say U.S.
District Judge Emmet Sullivan ''clearly exceeded'' his authority in ordering the
administration to release records. He said they may ask the appeals court to speed up the
case.

                                           IV
A. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted Aug. 30, 1955 by
the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, annex I, E.S.C. res. 663C, 24 U.N. ESCOR Supp.
(No. 1) at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. res. 2076, 62 U.N. ESCOR
Supp. (No. 1) at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977) and the Declaration of Protection of All
People from Enforced Disappearances.A. res. 47/133, 47 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at
207, U.N. Doc. A/47/49 (1992). Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/133 of 18
December 1992 compels the Court to locate the prisoner, Erpenbeck, and submit this
brief approved, to the warden of the detention facility, so that he would be immediately
released.

B. Under Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court as Certiorari to a United States
Court of Appeals before Judgment A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case
pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will
be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as
to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate
determination in this Court. The intervention of the Supreme Court shall be considered
justified by the compelling need to uphold Hospitals & Asylums Sentencing Standards
24USC(9)§326, to release the illegally detained prisoner who has been relocated to some
location, probably within the continental United States, within 5 days of the discovery of
the location of the prisoner. The consortium of Public Housing Authorities and Banks
will supervise the management of the improperly bankrupted homebuilding and
development corporation under 24CFR Sec. 792.202 Section 8 Fraud Recoveries for the
approval of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals when they decide Case No. 04-3456&7 at the
end of 2004.

C. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) the Supreme Court has jurisdiction after one month but
not longer than 6 months, to review the April‘s Fools Day decision of Judge Spiegel at
the US District Court Southern District of Ohio DC 0648-1 & 03-00050 that sentenced
developer Bill Erpenbeck to 20-30 years in prison for bank fraud and associated
obstruction of justice as this trial was not merely unconstitutional under the double
jeopardy clause of the V Amendment and the right to a public trial and counsel for
defense under the VI Amendment that prohibits such confidential prosecutions;

   1. the trial was offensive to the bankruptcy tradition of the US Courts,
   2. threatens the sanity of the budget balancing authority of the Office of
      Management and Budget and Hospitals & Asylums;
   3. failed to register with the Hamilton County Clerk or Bureau of Prisons;
   4. is within the Power of the US Supreme Court to remedy as the local jail reports
      the prisoner to have been relocated by the US Marshall‘s to an undisclosed
      location.
   5. The Criminal Justice representation of the Erpenbeck Trial was so appalling that
      the average observer would have to conclude he has possibly been murdered
      while before the scrutiny of the public in a solicitation to the Attorney General for
      a repeat of the destructive bank fraud of 2004 that has thankfully been averted by
      the intervention of Hospitals & Asylums and the Federal Reserve.
   6. The Public Housing Authorities involved in this multi-jurisdictional dispute
      regarding the independent status of a developers contracts that should be reviewed
      by local and/or federal offices of Housing and Urban Development.

D. In contravention to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,
adopted Aug. 30, 1955 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and the Treatment of Offenders, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/611, annex I, E.S.C. res. 663C, 24
U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 11, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957), amended E.S.C. res. 2076,
62 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 35, U.N. Doc. E/5988 (1977) the Erpenbecks have been
and continue to be;

(1) deprived of communication,

(2) unregistered in the Hamilton County Clerk where originally detained nor in the
Inmate Locator of the Bureau of Prisons.

E. We fear for his safety. The clerks of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals suggested on the
telephone that the author be appointed counsel to the Court however the declarant
declined on grounds that without Erpenback the author could not fulfill the requirements
of counsel for the defense under the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution and Rule 9 of
the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court. This is not the first case where prisoners
have been filed missing at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals by Hospitals & Asylums. In
Constitutional Mental Health Commission v. Pauline Warfield Lewis Center No. 00-
4185 both separate alleged mentally ill habeas corpus petitions resulted in the unlawful
transfer and disappearance of the charges while before the scrutiny of the Circuit and
Supreme Courts. Bodzin v. Valle Vista LLC. IS U.S. District Court C-2-577 reported
the illegal transfer of a psychiatric prisoner from Clark County tried in Sanders vs.
Bodzin et al. Ohio 2nd D.C. App 02-CA-0003 to Southern Indiana from whence the
prisoner was illegally transferred to a Northern Indiana facility. Jeffrey Steele v.
Hamilton County Community Board of Mental Health No. 99-1771. Ohio Supreme
Court. 10/18/2000 was also reported to not be a patient of the State Mental Institution
where he was reported to be held and there are no leads. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
and District Courts will clearly need to keep much closer tabs on the whereabouts of
prisoners and be more enthusiastic about investigating judicially disappeared prisoners
because they and their private investigators are authorized for relief, like all pro bono
investigators of human trafficking, from the Office of Management and Budget and the
Secretary of State so as to relieve the burden on private investigators who are not
typically paid for the work that they have done and rarely have enough for national
investigations without open lines of communication. Unless the Circuit Court has
suddenly adopted a more aggressive strategy against disappearance the assistance of the
Supreme Court and Executives will be required to release the prisoner(s).

                                            V
A. The Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability are published
by the Judicial Council of the 6th Circuit. These Rules set forth a system whereby
complaints about judicial misconduct and disability are submitted without charge to the
Circuit Executive who reviews the case and may be petitioned for the disclosure of his
decision that is submitted to the Judicial Council for a more thorough review. A special
committee of bankruptcy judges may be called upon to investigate the claim and shall be
afforded the money for witness fees. Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit, 398
U.S. 74. Until this Trial the local District Court has been able to plead supremacy in
criminal sentencing to the criminal trials of the state court however the Erpenbeck fiasco
has shown that society does not truly benefit from having two criminal prosecutors in a
single town and the high rates of institutionalization coupled with the recent rash of hard
to believe corporate raiding by the District Courts have demonstrated once and for all that
the District Courts should not criminally prosecute at all, in fact their judges and US
Attorney should devote their knowledge to civil trials and the enforcement of civil rights
in the state courts to process crime in co-operation with the ordinary local police force as
they co-operate inter county, inter state and international. This moratorium on criminal
prosecution in the Federal Judiciary would ultimately lead to the release of roughly
150,000 prisoners detained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The institutions could be
incorporated into the state correctional system with the demolition of old and surplus
prisons. Should the prisoner(s) be permanently missing or murdered it would be
appropriate to fire Judge Spiegel, Judge Dlotte and the US Attorney for Cincinnati. The
Claims against the District Court are listed as follows;
(1) Under Ohio RC § 2725.25. No prisoner to be sent out of state. No person shall be sent
as a prisoner to a place out of this state, for a crime or offense committed within it. A
person imprisoned in violation of this section may maintain an action for false
imprisonment against the person by whom he was so imprisoned or transported, and
against a person who contrives, writes, signs, seals, or countersigns a writing for such
imprisonment or transportation, or aids or assists therein. Under RC § 2725.21 the Clerk
owes Hospitals & Asylums Forfeiture for refusal to issue writ A clerk of a court who
refuses to issue a writ of habeas corpus, after an allowance of such writ and a demand
therefor, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of five hundred dollars and another
$500 to the Erpenbecks if it should be discovered that they were relocated out of state
without their consent.

(2) Most critically the District has not automatically informed the Circuit Court or public
records of where the prisoner is located in contravention to Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners (1977) and the District Court is too fearsome for the private
investigators to request the court records for fear of being disappeared for conducting an
investigation under the Declaration of Protection of All People from Enforced
Disappearances (1992). The Court, like all courts should issue a guarantee to protect
Reporters and Courthouse Witnesses from being falsely arrested as the International
Court of Justice has done in the Advisory Opinion Difference Relating to the Immunity
From Legal Process of a Special Rappateur of the Commission on Human Rights that
grants these witnesses whether or not they are officially employed immunity from
unreasonable prosecution and incarceration without totally dismissing popular claims for
relief stemming from misconduct, particularly slanderous human rights claims, caused by
their litigious behavior.
B. In Bankers Trust Co. No. 95-3199 the Federal Reserve demonstrated their
effectiveness investigating banking accounting and disputes. As extraordinary
performers under civil law there is no cause for criminal action, in fact criminal action of
the Court against the Erpenbecks is well considered a Crime by or Affecting Persons
Engaged in the Business of Insurance whose activities affect Interstate Commerce under
18USC(47)§1034 because of the large amount of relief Mr. Erpenbeck was already
providing as insurance to his contract holders. The Kentucky Supreme Court has recited
these rules as follows: [A]s to the manner of construction of insurance policies,
Kentucky law is crystal clear that exclusions are to be narrowly interpreted and all
questions resolved in favor of the insured. Exceptions and exclusions are to be strictly
construed so as to render the insurance effective. The current incarceration of Erpenbeck
clearly renders the insurance ineffective and due to the time spent not working and
outright theft has deteriorated has developed into a Major Fraud Against the United
States 18USC§1031 perpetrated by the District Court for preventing the hardworking
Erpenbecks from working on contracts that do not need a gavel, but a hammer. The civil
claim to enforced bankruptcy due to fraudulent business practices needs to be reviewed
by the 6th Circuit because the Erpenbecks seem to be hardworking and honest people who
have been singled out for the persecution of the District Court. The Court of Appeals
will need to determine whether the Erpenbecks are competent enough businesspeople to
continue running an independent development contracting agency by placing their assets
in the protective care of the local Public Housing Authorities for 24CFR Sec. 792.202
Section 8 Fraud Recoveries.

C. The 2004 judgment of the Court reports the Erpenbecks as having only $26.3 million
in outstanding contracts. These contracts need to be cared for by local Public Housing
Authorities to ensure that work is paid for and that contracts paid for are honored as the
contractor has been incarcerated. Kelly v. Bank One 6th Circuit No. 93-4211 (1996)
defined that a scheme to defraud consists of "[i]ntentional fraud, consisting in deception
intentionally practiced to induce another to part with property or to surrender some legal
right, and which accomplishes the designed end." Id. at 1216. To allege intentional
fraud, there must be "proof of misrepresentations or omissions which were 'reasonably
calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. '" Although the
District Court in the Eprenbeck Case has managed to prove that the Erpenbecks were less
than perfect businessmen in 2002 the hypotheses of scienter, maliscious intent, is
overturned as the result of the extensive payments made for the class action by the
business owner Blount Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., 819 F.2d 151, 153
(6th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

D. In Peoples Bank & Trust v. The Aetna Casualty, et al. 6th Cir. No. 95-6250
demonstrated the need to prove manifest intent in frauds and the insurance obligation to
compensate investors and depositors victimized in the fraud although this sort of
recklessness is simply a characterization of a high degree of bad business judgment used
in making loans. The Court must therefore refrain from making criminal allegations
against the Erpenbecks in the name of the investors who exercised bad judgment
investing in a man who had a reputation for not paying and was furthermore being
victimized by the Federal Court. Unlike the Erpenbecks, the Federal Court has never
demonstrated any cognizance for their role in the defrauding of the investors. All the
current damages against the corporation are clearly directly the result of serious crimes
committed by the District Court, it is quite possible that most of the damages in 2002
were also caused by the strange disappearance of documents and breaches in
communication caused by the criminal units operating under the jurisdiction of the
District Court, and it is nearly certain that all the current allegations this 2004 are
fabrications of the District Court and FBI in order to commit the extremely fraudulent
crime of prison slavery. In FDIC v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 942 F.2d
1032, 1035 (6th Cir. 1991), "[a]lthough the concept of 'manifest intent' does not
necessarily require that the employee actively wish for or desire a particular result, it
does require more than a mere probability…[M]anifest intent exists when a particular
result is 'substantially certain' to follow from conduct.'" In FDIC v. United Pacific Ins.
Co., 20 F.3d 1070, 1078 (10th Cir. 1994) "evidence of reckless conduct can support an
inference of manifest intent");

                                           VI
A Joint Bankruptcy proceedings under 11USC§302 are a respected method for
determining whether the Erpenbecks should continue serving the United States as a
private corporation, as government employees or as retirees. After the commencement of
a joint case, the court shall determine the extent, if any, to which the debtors' estates shall
be consolidated by the Representatives of Department of Housing and Urban
Development, who are highly recommended to employ the Erpenbecks as case managers
on salary to administrate loans and contracts under the supervision of the Cincinnati
Department of Community Development who shall supervise all contracts in accordance
with 24CFR Sec. 792.202 Section 8 Fraud Recoveries that grant the PHA the authority to
retain the proceeds. It is recommended that the alleged offenders be employed by the
state with the same contractual responsibilities of their former positions of corporate
financial executive authority, but without the liberty to earn a profit as a private security.

 (a) Where the PHA is the principal party initiating or sustaining an action to recover
amounts from tenants that are due as a result of fraud and abuse, the PHA may retain, the
greater of: (1) Fifty percent of the amount it actually collects from a judgment, litigation
(including settlement of lawsuit) or an administrative repayment agreement pursuant to,
or incorporating the requirements of, Sec. 982.555 of this title; or (2) Reasonable and
necessary costs that the PHA incurs related to the collection from a judgment, litigation
(including settlement of lawsuit and release of prisoner) or an administrative repayment
agreement pursuant to, or incorporating the requirements of, Sec. 982.555 of this title.
Reasonable and necessary costs include the costs of the investigation, legal fees and
collection agency fees.(b) If HUD incurs costs on behalf of the PHA in obtaining the
judgment, these costs must be deducted from the amount to be retained by the PHA or
billed by fax to the Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3888.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:11
posted:10/28/2011
language:English
pages:11
gjmpzlaezgx gjmpzlaezgx
About